Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Crime Businesses Power The Media Transportation

Tesla: Journalists Trespassed At Gigafactory, Assaulted Employees (teslamotors.com) 328

An anonymous reader writes: Telsa Motors has published a blog post saying that a pair of journalists from the Reno Gazette Journal trespassed on the grounds of the company's new Gigafactory and attacked security workers with their vehicle when confronted. "As the Tesla employee attempted to record the license plate number on the rear bumper, the driver put it in reverse and accelerated into the Tesla employee, knocking him over, causing him to sustain a blow to the left hip, an approximate 2" bleeding laceration to his right forearm, a 3" bleeding laceration to his upper arm, and scrapes on both palms." Officials from the Sheriff's Department arrived shortly after this happened and arrested one of the trespassers for felony assault. The RGJ has a story about the altercation as well, confirming there was an altercation, but also noting, "The newspaper's vehicle was damaged in the altercation. A rock had been used to shatter the driver's-side window and the driver's-side seat belt had been cut in half."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla: Journalists Trespassed At Gigafactory, Assaulted Employees

Comments Filter:
  • I would have thought this place would have had security cameras everywhere. Elon, you need better security staff or did you outsource it?

    • by wbr1 ( 2538558 )
      Cameras do not always capture plates well. This was security soon their job.
      • Actually the newer cameras out there are pretty good at it. [youtube.com]

      • by 50000BTU_barbecue ( 588132 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @07:41PM (#50722163) Homepage Journal

        Except when they're speeding cameras. Then they can capture a license plate on Pluto.

      • by khallow ( 566160 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @10:36PM (#50723105)

        Cameras do not always capture plates well. This was security soon their job.

        If you're getting struck by cars, you're not doing your job right. Having actually worked as a security guard before, I would have recorded the plate without endangering myself and not have obstructed the fleeing reporters in any way - though requesting that they stay for the police to question was reasonable. I would attempt to not be confrontational.

        Tesla's security strikes me as being in the same boat as I was. They don't have the authority to stop someone from leaving the property. The request to stay for police and to record the car's license plate was as far as they should have gone.

        It sounds like multiple parties were at fault. There should have been no occasion to hit two security employees and a company ATV because those should have been nowhere near the reporters' vehicle or path of egress.

        Let's go over the Tesla blog entry in more detail:

        The two RGJ employees and the Tesla employee were then met at the Jeep by a second safety manager at the Gigafactory. The two Gigafactory safety managers asked the RGJ employees to wait before departing, as security management and the Sheriffâ(TM)s Department were en route to the scene. Disregarding this request, the RGJ employees entered the Jeep. As the Tesla employee attempted to record the license plate number on the rear bumper, the driver put it in reverse and accelerated into the Tesla employee, knocking him over, causing him to sustain a blow to the left hip, an approximate 2â bleeding laceration to his right forearm, a 3â bleeding laceration to his upper arm, and scrapes on both palms.

        As the RGJ employees fled the scene, their Jeep struck the ATV that carried the two safety managers. When one of the safety managers dismounted the ATV and approached the Jeep, the driver of the Jeep accelerated into him, striking him in the waist.

        So here's what I see right away:

        1) the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out. That sounds bad to me since the employee shouldn't have been there.
        2) the ATV may have been blocking egress by the reporters' vehicle, but we can't tell.
        3) One of the managers approached the vehicle after it had already struck at least two things. That was particularly dumb.
        4) If the driver had intended to hurt someone, the injuries (the only damage from the vehicle described) would probably have been a lot more severe and likely the Sheriff's Department would have arrested the driver on a charge of assault and battery or even attempted murder rather than just assault. They may still do that, but the blog indicates a lesser charge was selected for some reason.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          1) the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out. That sounds bad to me since the employee shouldn't have been there.

          On the other hand, you're not permitted to drive into people even if they shouldn't have been where they were standing.

        • You didn't supply an explanation on how RGJ's car window was broken.
           

        • by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @12:21AM (#50723443) Journal

          I agree in part--security people are normally trained to stay out of harm's way and this illustrates exactly why they shouldn't put themselves in harms way for a license plate or to detain someone. But I would also say that:

          a) You can't legally just drive over people, even if they're doing something they shouldn't be. It's hard to reconcile the "rock attack" with any part of the stories, other than the collision with the ATV. You can't really hit the driver's window (or cut their seat belt) from behind the car.
          b) The fact that they injured multiple people is worrisome. You can say that running over the first guy was an accident, but it's less credible the second time you hit someone and nobody alleges that both injuries were sustained at the same time.
          c) We need more facts, especially camera recordings (if any), to see what's going on here, or at least a detailed reconstruction of the scene of the accident. The police should have taken lots of pictures of the state of everything, so it shouldn't be too hard to see where exactly the blood stains, rocks (if any), skid marks, etc. were found.

          But just for right now, we have several injured guards and no injured reporters. I don't know about the "rock attack" bit of the story, it doesn't add up yet. So it's certainly possible the guards did something legally wrong, but the two stories disagree and there's no corroborating evidence other than the car itself. We'll know if any evidence is found for the "rock attack" because charges will probably get filed if they can substantiate their claims of being attacked first.

          I would tend to reserve judgement until the evidence is presented at trial, but I do see it being problematic that the guards are hurt and the reporters are not and neither side appears to dispute the claim that the reporters caused injury to the guards. If, as they say, they were attacked first, why is it that they are unable to allege any specific bodily injury as a result?

          I use the same logic when someone is arrested for "resisting arrest" and the injuries sustained are completely disproportionate (i.e. one party is unhurt and the other party is severely hurt). If you were actually attacked, there should be some evidence of injury. Similarly, when one side tries to flee before the cops arrive--a part of the story that neither side appears to dispute--they become automatically suspect for that very reason.

          • a) You can't legally just drive over people, even if they're doing something they shouldn't be.

            Thank you, this...

            Even if the security ATV was blocking the road and preventing them from leaving, even if that is illegal, that doesn't then give you the right to drive over people or intentionally crash into another vehicle, with perhaps the sole exception of fear for your life...

            Does anyone claim that security was pointing guns or shooting at the reporters? If not, then vehicular assault is clearly illegal.

            • by Holi ( 250190 )
              It wouldn't matter if the security guards were pointing guns. You would have a hard time claiming self defense against a security guard while you were trespassing.
          • by Cytotoxic ( 245301 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @07:56AM (#50724657)

            Both the "rock attack" and the cut seatbelt probably occurred when the police arrived. The reporters probably wouldn't exit the vehicle so the cops broke the window and cut the seat belt to pull the driver out. This is a reasonably common police tactic when someone refuses to exit a vehicle.

            The reason I doubt it was the security guards is the reporting from the RGJ. They don't report their employee's version - they ask the Sheriff and say he "can't confirm how that damage occurred". So I'd say the police broke the window, probably not with a rock, and then they cut the seatbelt and pulled the driver from the vehicle. At least that is the most plausible version of events.

        • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @12:23AM (#50723451)
          I agree with what you say with two modifications.

          There should have been no occasion to hit two security employees and a company ATV because those should have been nowhere near the reporters' vehicle or path of egress.

          There should have been no occasion to hit two security employees and a company ATV because the reporters shouldn't have been on the property in the first place. Regardless of how the situation escalated, the incident was ultimately precipitated by the reporters trespassing.

          Tesla's security strikes me as being in the same boat as I was. They don't have the authority to stop someone from leaving the property.

          The original infraction was trespassing. The obvious resolution for trespassing is to get the trespasser off the property. Charging them with criminal trespass is secondary. So whether the security guards had authority to stop someone from leaving the property was irrelevant - their primary goal should've been to get the reporters to leave. Which they were apparently trying to do at the time the injuries were sustained, when the guards tried to stop them.

          If the security cameras in place were insufficient to grab a license plate and photos of the trespassers' faces, then that should've been something for the security guards to bring up at the next manager's meeting so it could be addressed in the future. We're not talking about thieves making off with the crown jewels, we're talking about a couple guys being where they're not supposed to be (at the time of the incident the security guards probably had no way to know these were reporters - anyone can print out an official-looking ID). There was no need for heroics on the part of the security guards. Chasing the reporters out should have been sufficient this time, with the incident providing ammo for the guards' request for better cameras and (perhaps) a gate at the entrance.

          I've managed a 50 acre resort and have had to deal with trespassers (mostly high school kids from the neighborhood sneaking into the pool). The vast majority of them leave when asked. There is no reason to escalate the situation unless they refuse to leave or start destroying property. Unless they are causing or have caused physical damage, I really don't understand why you would want to stop them from leaving. Even if they cuss at you and flip you off, there's no reason to escalate things - being a jerk is not a crime.

          • by FlyHelicopters ( 1540845 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @03:25AM (#50723977)

            I've managed a 50 acre resort and have had to deal with trespassers (mostly high school kids from the neighborhood sneaking into the pool). The vast majority of them leave when asked. There is no reason to escalate the situation unless they refuse to leave or start destroying property.

            Your 50 acre resort probably didn't have trade secrets to protect and didn't have to be concerned about competition and other people sneaking in to discover ways to harm your business.

            Tesla has that concern, so they need better security.

        • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

          It does not sound that way to me.
          1. The journalists should not have been there. They where trespassing which is breaking the law.

          "1) the first employee to be hit was standing behind the vehicle as it backed out. That sounds bad to me since the employee shouldn't have been there."
          Wrong. It is illegal to hit someone with your car when backing out of a location.

          "2) the ATV may have been blocking egress by the reporters' vehicle, but we can't tell."
          So what if it was? You are not allowed to just hit things with

      • Cheap Cameras do not always capture plates well.

        FTFY. Anyone who is actually interested in capturing number plates can get a suitable camera for the task, just ask your local LE.

    • They just started building the place. It may not even have an electric grid hookup yet.

    • Even with HD cameras, making out a license plate at any distance can be difficult. Try it sometime. Put your phone up at an angle a security camera might be, and see how readable things are at a distance. To do a good job of reading license plates you either need something mounted specifically for that (at a gate or something) or you need really high rez cameras, like the still cameras used at red light cameras.

      General security cameras aren't much use for license plates.

      • not that hard nowadays [youtube.com]

        • That's "a camera specifically designed to capture license plates." But that's not necessary. [youtube.com]
          • I got a guy who can do it. [youtube.com]

            • I think what you guys are missing is that most security cameras have an elevated vantage point so that they can see what people are doing. Often times when cars are around in such a situation, the license plate isn't within proper view of the camera.

              This is in contrast to traffic cameras which are positioned to best photograph license plates. They can do that better in those situations because it's a roadway and you can generally predict where a vehicle is going to be, and thus the proper placement to get a

              • by khallow ( 566160 )

                But mostly, and above all else, if I were a security guard, I wouldn't just assume that one of the cameras will capture it; I would do my best to see it for myself and write it down. Doing otherwise is flat out moronic.

                Agreed. It's also supporting evidence that you were there and aware. "See judge, I copied the license plate down while speaking with the driver."

              • I think what you guys are missing is that most security cameras have an elevated vantage point so that they can see what people are doing. Often times when cars are around in such a situation, the license plate isn't within proper view of the camera.

                We're not talking mom and pop corner store here.
                You are missing the point that anyone who cares about security at this level will have number plate recognition cameras all the way up the street to ensure security is maintained.
                I worked for a large financial services firm a decade ago. At our purpose-built data centre we had anti tank guards, electric fences, remotely deployed spikes on the roads, and pressure sensors in the footpath to track movement. Do you think a simple number plate capture is a challe

                • Do you think a simple number plate capture is a challenge for security operations at this level?

                  I'm going to break debate etiquette and answer that with a question: Would you just assume that your technology is going to be foolproof and work 100% of the time, and not bother to write down the plate number when the car is right in front of you?

                  Another question: If you read the blog, you can notice that both employees had RGJ press ID badges, and their car also had RGJ decals prominently displayed on it. For what reason are they to assume that press people are going to take hostile action against them?

                  Ke

    • It says in TFA they climbed a fence marked "private property" in order to take the pictures. It's hard to climb a fence while carrying a Jeep. Ergo the Jeep was most likely parked outside the grounds of the factory.

      • by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @07:31PM (#50722105)

        It says in TFA they climbed a fence marked "private property" in order to take the pictures. It's hard to climb a fence while carrying a Jeep. Ergo the Jeep was most likely parked outside the grounds of the factory.

        Or the grounds of the factory extend beyond the fenced in area and they were confronted after they left the fenced-in area but while their jeep was still parked on factory property.

      • by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @07:40PM (#50722159)

        From Tesla:

        The two RGJ employees and the Tesla employee were then met at the Jeep by a second safety manager at the Gigafactory. The two Gigafactory safety managers asked the RGJ employees to wait before departing, as security management and the Sheriff’s Department were en route to the scene. Disregarding this request, the RGJ employees entered the Jeep. As the Tesla employee attempted to record the license plate number on the rear bumper, the driver put it in reverse and accelerated into the Tesla employee

        So second safety manager pulls up and then when the RGJ folks try and get away somebody gets a license plate? No camera rolling? Sounds like an episode of Mayberry RFD or the Wacky Racers. Barney Fife would be proud. At least a real cop (Sheriff) arrested one of them. As I previously stated, Elon needs better security if he's concerned about trade secrets getting out or a better PR department onsite so that RGJ doesn't somehow think that they need to trespass.

  • Serves them right (Score:5, Informative)

    by BronsCon ( 927697 ) <social@bronstrup.com> on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @07:12PM (#50721993) Journal
    Your vehicle was damaged in the course of committing criminal trespass and vehicular assault? Count your blessings that you aren't being charged with attempted murder.
    • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @07:24PM (#50722069) Homepage Journal

      Your vehicle was damaged in the course of committing criminal trespass and vehicular assault? Count your blessings that you aren't being charged with attempted murder.

      I dunno, depends on circumstance. If the employee broke the driver side window and tried to wrestle the driver out by cutting the seat belt, then a reasonable driver might fear for his life.

      I'm going to wait a day or two and see if more facts come to light, before I make any judgements.

      (Of course, *you* are welcome to make judgements any time.)

      • by taustin ( 171655 )

        I dunno, depends on circumstance. If the employee broke the driver side window and tried to wrestle the driver out by cutting the seat belt, then a reasonable driver might fear for his life.

        My thought exactly. Trespassing is usually an infraction in California, not a misdemeanor, and I suspect it's the same in Nevada. That makes it pretty iffy as to whether or not the private security had any legal right to detail them at all. If they can't make a case for a misdemeanor - and used the magic words "You're under arrest" - then the security guards could be looking at unlawful imprisonment charges.

        In theory.

        As you say, we don't know shit at this point.

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          I don't think these were security guards - I think the "safety managers" may have been just that: construction personnel who oversee safety on the construction site. If you enter any modern construction site without proper safety equipment, someone on staff will certainly confront you, probably in a way that seems aggressive, as shouting is the norm on a site.

          If they "breaking the window and cutting the safety belt" happened before the vehicular assault, that's clearly them in the wrong, but if they just we

        • by dunkindave ( 1801608 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @08:06PM (#50722353)

          Trespassing is usually an infraction in California, not a misdemeanor, and I suspect it's the same in Nevada.

          Not sure about California, but in Nevada trespassing is a misdemeanor, per NRS207.200 [state.nv.us]: "Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to NRS 200.603, any person who, under circumstances not amounting to a burglary, (b) willfully goes or remains upon any land or in any building after having been warned by the owner or occupant thereof not to trespass, is guilty of a misdemeanor" and "A sufficient warning against trespassing, within the meaning of this section, is given by any of the following methods (c) fencing the area" (FYI, NRS 200.603 deals with spying into homes)

          Also note the part about burglary. It can be argued that deliberately entering to take pictures of proprietary items constitutes burglary so this could be treated as a felony.

        • Trespass in Nevada is a misdemeanor under "NRS207.200Unlawful trespass upon land; warning against trespassing."

        • Although trespassing is one thing they could be charged with, an industrial espionage charge might work as well. It's a federal crime.
      • by BronsCon ( 927697 ) <social@bronstrup.com> on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @07:45PM (#50722201) Journal
        I'm basing my assessment on the information available (e.g. what is reported here), which is that they backed into the security guard who was behind them. In an effort to be as fair as possible to the RGJ reporters involved, I referred to only the RGJ article when making this assessment; their own publication paints them in a negative light using the county sheriff, who arrested the driver and charged him with battery with a deadly weapon, as a source.

        I'll just assume you didn't read either article, then. And even if you are correct and the security agents "broke the driver side window and tried to wrestle the driver out by cutting the seat belt", the law is pretty damn clear with regard to liability for injury and property damage during the commission of a felony.
        • I'm basing my assessment on the information available

          That's your problem. Accurate information is almost never available in news stories.

          • That's your problem. Accurate information is almost never available in news stories.

            and making stuff up is better than reported information?

          • Well, when there is a dispute and you have reports from both sides, that's about as close to the full story as you're going to get. When reports from both sides agree about what happened, especially when one side reports negatively about their own involvement, the stories are much less suspect. Do you have a better source available?
            • Do you have a better source available?

              No.

              Every time I've known the true story behind a news article, the news article has been wrong.

              • Of course, when the news organization is presenting third-party information. In this case, both sources were party to the incident being reported; first-party sources are where the true story comes from.
            • Well, when there is a dispute and you have reports from both sides, that's about as close to the full story as you're going to get. When reports from both sides agree about what happened, especially when one side reports negatively about their own involvement, the stories are much less suspect. Do you have a better source available?

              Slashdot. Everything on it is factual and unbiased...

        • I'll just assume you didn't read either article, then.

          On Slashdot, that's a given. Hell, it's a given with one article, how much more two of them?

        • by khallow ( 566160 )

          I'm basing my assessment on the information available (e.g. what is reported here), which is that they backed into the security guard who was behind them.

          There may have been more than one security guard involved.

          the law is pretty damn clear with regard to liability for injury and property damage during the commission of a felony.

          I don't buy that here since even with the facts we know, the event could have happened in numerous ways. There seems to be a reasonable case that the reporters were committing trespassing, but that is not a felony.

          We'll just have to see what happened. It could have been a straight forward case of assault and battery by the driver with the broken window and cut seat belt either not happening or done by the reporters afterward. Or it could be that a

          • Well, we have reports from both sides. Those reports agree with each other, the reporters are at fault. You'd think if that weren't the case, RGJ would try to defend them, to avoid liability at the very least.
            • by khallow ( 566160 )
              As I said earlier, we'll just have to see when the actual evidence comes out. I don't agree that we have reports from both sides. The reporters' stories are absent.

              You'd think if that weren't the case, RGJ would try to defend them, to avoid liability at the very least.

              And maybe they are. I don't see that mentioned in the currently linked stories.

              • Considering that the second story was published by RGJ, that constitutes RGJ's comment on the incident. If they're defending the reporters, they're doing a piss-poor job of it.
                • by khallow ( 566160 )

                  Considering that the second story was published by RGJ, that constitutes RGJ's comment on the incident. If they're defending the reporters, they're doing a piss-poor job of it.

                  It's routine legal practice to avoid discussing particulars of a potential or ongoing lawsuit. Tesla could say more because they sound like they're on considerably stronger legal grounds (their guards sound like they committed some errors, but aside from being in the way, not to an extent to materially affect the actions of the driver who was hitting things).

      • Your vehicle was damaged in the course of committing criminal trespass and vehicular assault? Count your blessings that you aren't being charged with attempted murder.

        I dunno, depends on circumstance. If the employee broke the driver side window and tried to wrestle the driver out by cutting the seat belt, then a reasonable driver might fear for his life.

        I'm going to wait a day or two and see if more facts come to light, before I make any judgements.

        (Of course, *you* are welcome to make judgements any time.)

        Is this one of those states where if you are in a place where you are lawfully entitled to be and you fear for your life you can use deadly force and get away with it with no questions asked? Like in Florida.

      • by jrumney ( 197329 )
        Exactly - either side's action could be reasonable if the other side's action came first. It depends entirely on the order of events, which we don't know enough about.
      • A "reasonable driver" would not be trespassing at a secure facility taking photos. That is the "circumstance" on which all is based, and anything that happened to them was fully justified based on that fact alone.

      • The thing is that regardless of whether or not they were attacked by the security staff they were in the act of trespassing. If they are trespassing and refuse to be detained by the security staff then the security staff should do what they are hired to do and remove the trespassers. You can't claim that you were assaulted by an angry homeowner wielding a baseball bat if you were in the process of robbing him.

        Further more I believe that any harm caused in the commission of a crime is automatically elevate

    • by Calibax ( 151875 ) * on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @07:24PM (#50722073)

      It's very likely that if they had driven their vehicle at a police officer rather than Tesla security they would have been shot, and if they survived they would have been charged with attempted murder.

      They were lucky that the Tesla security people either were not armed or chose not to shoot at them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @07:29PM (#50722087)

    A Harley biker is riding by the zoo in Louisiana when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage.
    Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.
    The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.
    Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.
    A reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'
    The Harley rider replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.'
    The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page.
    So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?'

    The biker replies, 'I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.'
    The journalist leaves.
    The following morning the biker buys the paper to see news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:

    U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH

  • They are excavating a spaceship, not really building a factory ;-)
  • Tried to see what kind of newspaper it was. Its cartoons all tend to be liberal. Anti gun, anti GOP mostly. But it is recycling editorials from USA Today. So all my mouse-click investigative journalism to unearth deep plot by Koch Brothers has come to a naught :-)
  • I can already tell you at least some of what happened:

    Regardless of whether they were trespassing or not (it certainly sounds as though they were), the journalists clearly assumed they were being detained illegally and were thus allowed to drive in the manner they did. However, the Tesla employees were clearly up to the chase, to the point of being willing to literally block the journalists' vehicle with their fucking bodies (WTF?!) and then there's the automobile vs ATV vehicle warfare... As to whether t

    • Being detained illegally is not grounds to use lethal force (and running someone over with a car counts). The law was on its way, so the proper thing to do is to wait quietly, talk to the officers, and perhaps take legal revenge later.

      The only excuse for running over someone is that someone is currently in danger of being killed, and I can't think of any likely credible threat. Breaking a window isn't a death threat.

  • A couple of thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @12:20AM (#50723437)

    Having read Tesla's, the RLG, and the LVS's accounts (which basically was the sam as the other 2), it seems to me the situation escalated to the point it got out of hand. If the guard was writing down the plate I would find it hard to justify hitting the guard with the Jeep.Given the photographer was told the sheriff was on the way it seems to me the reasonable thing to do was to wait and let the sheriff sort out what happened. I doubt the sheriff's response time would be anything but quick given Tesla's clout.

    What I don't understand is why the photographer felt it necessary to climb a fence to get a picture. I've shot photos through a fence and wonder what required getting closer? A 200mm tele give you good reach even at a distance. More to the point, most companies will give journalists tours and access to a site, even though you'll get a PR dog and pony show in most cases. But, as a journalist, you need to develop sources if you think something bad is going on. Someone will generally be willing to talk, if off the record, without you needing to trespass and then try to get away. I've cold called companies to get information and it is surprising what people will tell you. You just need to start putting the pieces together, ask more questions, and build a story.

    It will be interesting to see what happened as more details come out.

An algorithm must be seen to be believed. -- D.E. Knuth

Working...